Ray,
I understand this.
My point is that, at some point in time, history doesn't matter any longer.
Regards, Benoit
On 06/01/2016 13:46, Benoit Claise wrote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was slightly surprised by "implementation requirements" in the title.
If we write a RFC, we hopefully hope/require future implementations,
right?
I understand the willingness to change as little text as possible
compared RFC5966, but I would welcome the following update:
The rationale for the original text in RFC 5966 was that whilst how to
use TCP was already *specified*, it was often taken as not *required to
implement*.
IMHO, your proposed alternate text loses that distinction.
kind regards,
Ray
.
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
